ILNews

Ministers not protected under labor act

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a District Court's decision to toss out a case because the plaintiffs were not entitled to minimum wage and overtime under the "ministerial exception," although the Circuit Court modified the reason for dismissing the case.

In Steve and Lorrie Schleicher v. The Salvation Army, No. 07-1333, the Schleichers appealed the decision of U.S. District Judge Richard Young of the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, to dismiss the case for lack of federal jurisdiction. The Schleichers, ordained ministers of The Salvation Army, brought a suit against The Salvation Army, charging violations of the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Schleichers were administrators of The Salvation Army's Adult Rehabilitation Center in Indianapolis. The job did not pay wages, but they received a stipend of $150 a week. The Rehabilitation Center operated a total of five thrift shops, and most of the thrift shop employees were people down on their luck that The Salvation Army was attempting to redeem.

The couple was later expelled from The Salvation Army for filing the suit.

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Judge Young's decision to dismiss the case, although the case should have been dismissed because of lack of merits in the plaintiff's claims, wrote Judge Richard Posner.

The Schleichers were not employed by the thrift shops they worked at, nor is the Rehabilitation Center an ordinary business enterprise that would be subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Rehabilitation Center is a church, administered by church officials.

The question the Circuit Court had to decide was whether the fact that a church has a commercial dimension brings its ministers under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

It does not, using the Schleichers case as an example, wrote Judge Posner, because the ministers who run the Rehabilitation Center don't wait on customers or manage the day-to-day operations, but instead they manage the religious complex that includes the thrift shops.

Comparing the Schleichers' thrift shops to a Catholic cathedral that runs a gift shop, Judge Posner wrote that the employees of the thrift shop would be subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act, but the bishop who administers the cathedral is not.

"The Salvation Army's Adult Rehabilitation Centers are functional equivalents of cathedrals or monasteries, and the ministers who administer them are therefore engaged in ecclesiastical administration," he wrote.

The best way to decide the case is to presume clerical personnel are not covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act, which can be rebutted by proof a church is fake or the title of "minister" is not appropriately bestowed upon an employee.

The Schleichers are properly ordained ministers in a completely legitimate church, so they are not subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Judge Posner wrote that although Judge Young was correct in dismissing the case, the judge dismissed the case for the wrong reason, creating a harmless error. Judge Young dismissed the case under a rule that allowed the court to toss cases that are not within the jurisdiction of the District Court. The case should have been dismissed because of its merits - that the court would not rule in an ecclesiastical controversy, Judge Posner wrote.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I expressed my thought in the title, long as it was. I am shocked that there is ever immunity from accountability for ANY Government agency. That appears to violate every principle in the US Constitution, which exists to limit Government power and to ensure Government accountability. I don't know how many cases of legitimate child abuse exist, but in the few cases in which I knew the people involved, in every example an anonymous caller used DCS as their personal weapon to strike at innocent people over trivial disagreements that had no connection with any facts. Given that the system is vulnerable to abuse, and given the extreme harm any action by DCS causes to families, I would assume any degree of failure to comply with the smallest infraction of personal rights would result in mandatory review. Even one day of parent-child separation in the absence of reasonable cause for a felony arrest should result in severe penalties to those involved in the action. It appears to me, that like all bureaucracies, DCS is prone to interpret every case as legitimate. This is not an accusation against DCS. It is a statement about the nature of bureaucracies, and the need for ADDED scrutiny of all bureaucratic actions. Frankly, I question the constitutionality of bureaucracies in general, because their power is delegated, and therefore unaccountable. No Government action can be unaccountable if we want to avoid its eventual degeneration into irrelevance and lawlessness, and the law of the jungle. Our Constitution is the source of all Government power, and it is the contract that legitimizes all Government power. To the extent that its various protections against intrusion are set aside, so is the power afforded by that contract. Eventually overstepping the limits of power eliminates that power, as a law of nature. Even total tyranny eventually crumbles to nothing.

  2. Being dedicated to a genre keeps it alive until the masses catch up to the "trend." Kent and Bill are keepin' it LIVE!! Thank you gentlemen..you know your JAZZ.

  3. Hemp has very little THC which is needed to kill cancer cells! Growing cannabis plants for THC inside a hemp field will not work...where is the fear? From not really knowing about Cannabis and Hemp or just not listening to the people teaching you through testimonies and packets of info over the last few years! Wake up Hoosier law makers!

  4. If our State Government would sue for their rights to grow HEMP like Kentucky did we would not have these issues. AND for your INFORMATION many medical items are also made from HEMP. FOOD, FUEL,FIBER,TEXTILES and MEDICINE are all uses for this plant. South Bend was built on Hemp. Our states antiquated fear of cannabis is embarrassing on the world stage. We really need to lead the way rather than follow. Some day.. we will have freedom in Indiana. And I for one will continue to educate the good folks of this state to the beauty and wonder of this magnificent plant.

  5. Put aside all the marijuana concerns, we are talking about food and fiber uses here. The federal impediments to hemp cultivation are totally ridiculous. Preposterous. Biggest hemp cultivators are China and Europe. We get most of ours from Canada. Hemp is as versatile as any crop ever including corn and soy. It's good the governor laid the way for this, regrettable the buffoons in DC stand in the way. A statutory relic of the failed "war on drugs"

ADVERTISEMENT